The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of honoring the jurisdiction specified in the loan agreement and the lack of justification for filing a petition in a different Court.

Dalveer Bhandari, J. : In these writ petitions similar question of law arises for adjudication. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2895 of 2002, 2904 of 2002 and 2610 of 2003.

2. For the sake of convenience the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 2895 of 2002 are referred to.

3. The petitioner aggrieved by the issuance of recovery certificate No. FUP 1366/11235, dated 26th March, 2002 issued by respondent No.1. The Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as to `PICUP'), filed this petition before this Court. According to the recovery certificate the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 1,41,39,899.56 as on 30.4.2002.

4. The petitioner is the promoter of Premier Polyfilms Limited. The said company approached PICUP for grant of financial assistance. The company executed a loan agreement with PICUP. The loan agreement was executed on 25.4.1996 at Lucknow and was signed by the petitioner, A.K.Surekha.

5. Clause 57 of the agreement deals with the jurisdiction for litigation. The relevant portion reads as under:

57. Jurisdiction for litigation

The borrower and PICUP agree that for all purposes of litigation relating to his agreement this jurisdiction shall be of Lucknow Courts only.

6. The company had undertaken to secure the advance made by PICUP by :

(i) mortgage of fixed assets';

(ii) charge on other properties and assets;

(iii) acquisition of additional immovable properties; and

(iv) by personal guarantees of Shri A.K. Surekha (petitioner herein) and A.N. Goenka.

7. The petitioner has stood personal guarantee in his individual capacity for repayment of loans and other charges by the company to the respondent under the loan agreement itself. In furtherance to the Clause 16 of the loan agreement, the petitioner along with other guarantors also executed personal bond of guarantees dated 26.4.1996. The bond of guarantee was part of the entire loan agreement and was executed by the petitioner being a document necessary for obtaining loan by the company.

8. Clauses 9, 14 and 18 of the bond of guarantee reads as under :

Clause 9 : In order to give effect to the guarantee herein contained the Corporation shall be entitled to act as if the Guarantors were the principal debtors to the Corporation for all payments and Covenants guaranteed by them as aforesaid to the Corporation.

Clause 14 : The Guarantors hereby waive all rights which the Guarantors may become entitled to as surety/sureties to compete with the Corporation in obtaining payment of the moneys due or to become due to the Corporation in respect of the said loan in favour of the "the Corporation" as against the said Company/Borrower.

Clause 18: The Guarantors further hereby agree that till such time as the guarantee is not released by the Corporation the Guarantors and the property of each Guarantors jointly and severally lend all moneys that belong to either of the Guarantors or jointly to the Guarantors shall be available to the Corporation for the repayment of all moneys which shall at any time be due from the said Company/Borrower subject to the limit aforesaid.

9. The parties under the loan agreement have agreed that for the purposes of litigation relating to the loan agreement the jurisdiction would be of Lucknow Courts only. It would be relevant to mention that identical matter, Civil Writ Petition No. 2957/2002, by the same parties titled as Premier Polyfilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation, which came up before a Division Bench of this Court was withdrawn by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner shall seek an appropriate remedy before the forums in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.5.2002.

10. Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, had taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdic